Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga: Difference between revisions

WikiProject Anime and manga v · t · e · rc
Main project page  talk Portal Category talk Guidance Manual of Style talk Online sources talk Reference libraries  → Books talk  → Documentaries talk  → Magazines talk  → Manga magazines talk Templates talk Articles   Quality articles Open tasks    Popular pages Recent changes
Departments   Assessment talk  → Changelog  Cleanup talk  → Category  → Cleanup listing   Deletions archive · talk   Requests archive · talk Topic workshop talk    Yellow pages talk Task forces Biography talk Bleach talk Conventions talk Digimon talk Dragon Ball talk Evangelion talk Gundam talk Haruhi Suzumiya talk Hentai talk Light novels Joint TF! talk Sailor Moon talk Studio Ghibli Joint TF! talk Visual novels Joint TF! talk Yu-Gi-Oh! talk
Related projects Parent  → WikiProject Japan Related  → WikiProject Animation  → WikiProject Comics  → WikiProject Film  → WikiProject Television  → WikiProject Video games   → WikiProject Pokémon   → WikiProject Square Enix
Other Wikipe-tan talk Newsletter archive Character articles

Japan Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 20:20, October 5, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related articles Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. WikiProject Japan to do list: edit history watch purge Peer review: None A-class review: None Featured content candidates –  Articles: None Pictures: None Lists: None Good article nominations: Vinland Saga (TV series), Godzilla Minus One Add requested images to articles that need them. Pages for Deletion: Participate in Japan-related deletion discussions. Improve and expand Japan-related stubs. Create some requested articles. Help translate an article from the Japanese Wikipedia into English. Assess unassessed articles

Template:Fiction notice

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77

Mascot Discussions

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Anime and manga and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77Auto-archiving period: 10 days

See Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion#March_5: {{anime-eplist-stub}} and Category:Anime episode list stubs —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs) 11:23, 5 March 2010

Archive nudge --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 67.58.229.153 (talk) 16:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(The following notice was copied from Portal talk:Anime and Manga)

Currently, there are two different portal images, depending on how the portal template is called. Which one would people prefer? I'm not watching this page, so it would be great if you could comment at Template talk:Portal#Case duplicates. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(End copied text -- G.A.S^talk 09:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

From what I've seen, the M-version is preferred. I didn't even know about the m-version before. --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 67.58.229.153 (talk) 13:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like the closeup version better. You just get a better look at Wiki-tan and it's also as if her eyes are watching you saying "Yes, I see you there editing. No vandalism please.". Fox816 (talk) 18:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I confess I like the m-version as well -- easier to make out. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

m version too for me. --KrebMarkt 14:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anyway we can have a combianation of both?Bread Ninja (talk) 19:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I personally dont care, why cant we just use both? The wiki universe is not going to end or anything if we do is it? I think the bottom one looks better to be honest, it would look better if it was enlarged to show more detail. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like the bottom one better too. The top one kinda looks like those silly thumbnails they use in websites that don't show you the whole picture, forcing you to open the whole thing to see what it actually looks like. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 00:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I asked this already but got redirected here. Why is it that all anime pages have to be on the same page as the manga they're based on and yet movies and tv series based off of a comic book or a novel get separate pages? --75.3.132.58 (talk) 03:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there are enough sources for a particular adaptation to expand the section or information on that adaptation, then it can be split into a separate article. Until then, there's no reason to split it out. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One reason is to avoid redundancy separated anime & manga articles for the same franchise tend to repeat one another in term of contents.

Second reason is that a lot of original manga & visual novels which were adapted into anime are clearly borderline in term of notability and thus could be send for deletion. Putting the manga + anime together or visual novel + anime together is unsure contents resilience & survival.

Third with the increase of media mix and derived products, articles tend to be more on the whole franchise than just anime or manga. Having separated articles make you question were you should put Audio drama, Soundtracks, Internet radio show, Video games adaptation, etc... because i really doubt that all of them are notable per themselves thus deserving their own articles. --KrebMarkt 07:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's not notable about soundtracks or video games? --Gwern (contribs) 15:51 20 April 2010 (GMT)

There have been games out there that have not been notable to add or weren't notable at the time, soundtracks too, usually they aren't unless they are put in a list.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of anime soundtracks and video game adaptations are not notable on their own. Existence != notability. For the original OP, because most of the time, the anime and manga are not significantly different and are better served by having a single article rather than two primarily repetitive ones. The latter is often not true of movie/TV adaptations. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of video games are not notable? I'd say that's quite false; the long-standing video game magazine industry means that the RSs are there for most games if someone (in the right language) will look them up. --Gwern (contribs) 17:01 20 April 2010 (GMT)

Leave the bad-faith and personal attacks at home and not in your edit summary. If you can show a video game that was only released in Japan is notable (and have the sources) then go make an article for it. Otherwise, you are basically making an unsupportable and unverifiable claim. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your over simplifying it. because information exist that could make a video game notable, doesn't mean it is in wikipedia (yet).Bread Ninja (talk) 17:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think anime and manga articles are overly merged together. For most non-anime/manga works, both the original work and adaptations of it get separate articles if they each could pass the notability guidelines on their own. For example, for the Harry Potter franchise, the books each get an article, the films adapted from the books get separate articles, and the video games adapted from the films each get yet another article. Another example is the Halo Wikiproject, where all the secondary and tertiary parts of the franchise are made into good or featured articles, rather than being merged into a few articles. I think the instructions in WP:MOS-AM to combine articles on adaptations into the articles on the parent work are misguided and out of line with how the rest of Wikipedia handles adaptaions of fictional works. Instead I think the manual of style should encourage separate articles to be written if they both pass the notability guidelines and there is enough to write about each work that the articles wouldn't be just stubs. I don't see the issue of redundancy as being a real problem, both because no other Wikiproject seems to be concerned with it and because the parts that would be redundant (plot and characters) shouldn't be the majority of the article anyway. If each version of the work separately passes the notability guidelines, then there will have to be different things written about each version (i.e. different reviews, different production information, etc.). Though the arguement is made that articles on separate parts of a franchise could be split if the combined article becomes too large, it seems to me that more isn't written on the adaptations specifically because the articles are already combined together. For example, I think there is clearly enough information on Dragon Ball GT to support a separate article, as it would have different reception, sales figures, production information, a different plot summary, and some new major characters compared to the rest of the Dragon Ball franchise, but the article never gets written as it is merged into a small section of the parent article and no one wants to write a whole article worth of content in what is currently a small section of a large artilce. Anyway, that's my opinion on this issue. Calathan (talk) 17:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most series are NOT Dragon Ball level series. Most we are lucky to pull together enough reliable sources to even have one good article, much less try to split them into two or five or however many random adaptations and side items there are. I think the MoS handles both perfectly fine. It does not say "don't you ever make another article", it recommends having one good article over two crappy ones, then, if after you have one good article, there is enough content about any one specific adaptation (beyond just its chapter/episode list) to support another good article, then consider a split. There are some series where it has two main media that are different enough to warrant multiple articles, but most of the time, there is not enough difference. If you feel Dragon Ball GT should be resplit, write a new article in your user space and propose it on Dragon Ball. It DID have a separate article, and consensus was to merge it 0 it has nothing to do with preventing an article from being written, rather no one wants to bother nor has anyone shown how a full, separate article that is not redundant to the first is possible. As for what other projects are doing - I think that is mostly irrelevant as it is less common that each one can barely maintain notability (and where one of the two works is not notable, they are, in fact, merged same as with Anime/manga). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that all or most anime/manga articles should be split into multiple articles, but that the MOS keeps even those that should be split from being split by discouraging people from even attempting to write separate artilces. Using the example of Dragon Ball, there is clearly a large number of people who think Dragon Ball GT should be split. If the article was split, each person interested in the article could add a piece of text to it, with some people cleaning up the various pieces of text to make a coherent article, and eventually a good article would be created. That is the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. However, because of the MOS and people continually maintaining the redirect, any one person who wants it changed would have to do all the work towards creating a high quality article by themselves, placing too much of a burden on any one person for anyone to actually bother doing it. Basically, I think that instead of the MOS calling for articles to be merged unless there is a reason to split them, the MOS should call for separate articles unless there is a reason to merge them (with reasons for merging including that one version of the work isn't notable by itself, or the sources available don't seem to provide enough material to write multiple non-stub articles). In the case of Dragon Ball GT, it is clearly notable on its own due to reviews, and I think any quick pass of the sources available show that it could support a whole article (You could easily write two paragraphs of plot summary that wouldn't be redundant with the rest of Dragon Ball, and two paragraphs on reception that also wouldn't be redundant . . . I'd call that more than a stub already). AnmaFinotera, I think you are one of the small number of Wikipedia editors who puts a lot of work singlehandedly into writing high quality articles, and you are missing that the way Wikipedia works in general is that a large number of people contribute to articles until they build up into a whole, complete article. Its true that most articles won't reach features status until one or two dedicated people put a lot of work into them, but just because an article won't become featured article quality doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. It really feels to me that WP:MOS-AM is set up to hide away low quality articles on subjects that should have articles in order to make our article quality look better, and ignores the fact that Wikipedia works by having lots of contributors gradually add to an article over time. While the previous article on Dragon Ball GT might not have been a very good article, just having an article there would eventually lead to a decdent-quality artilce being written, while having a strictly maintained redirect will instead lead to the article never being written. Calathan (talk) 19:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not much of an issue, it's much more difficult to find reception for smaller games and such. you can't complain if something is merged for the right reasons. If you wish for every piece of media to have it's own featured article than it has to be notable. that's the key pointBread Ninja (talk) 18:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Insofar as spinout/adaptation articles are concerned, we are in a somewhat unique position on Wikipedia, for a number of reasons. Most generally, Wikipedia has its own version of the presumption of innocence - the "presumption of nonnotability". That is, the burden for establishing notability for a given topic or subject is on the individual wishing to write an article on it; this is most obviously supported by the entire AfD process. This also means that, even if a given subject *could* meet WP:N and company, it is assumed that it does not until explicitly shown that it does. The natural consequence of this for us specifically is that we end up with literally hundreds, if not thousands, of potential articles on notable subjects (including "the vast majority of anime soundtracks and video game adaptations") which may never get written simply because all notability-establishing reliable sources for those subjects are in e.g. Japanese and we have very little luck with finding reliable Japanese sources (this is not because such sources are scarce - anime and manga are, in Japan, as significant a part of the culture as Hollywood is here in America, and thus it is a reasonable assumption that reliable Japanese sources should be just as prevalent - nor is it for a lack of trying on our part, since most Japanese newspapers and magazines - the most obvious reliable Japanese sources - do not yet keep extended archives on their web sites). Next, the idea of having articles for adaptations is mostly handled by having spinout lists of episodes, chapters, films, video games, novels, albums, etc. - I do not believe it to be an exaggeration that we make more use of such spinout lists than even WP:TV. We have developed these lists so much, in fact, that many of them would only need production and reception information to pass for articles on adaptations, once they were brought up to about a high C or a B - this basically means that our adaptation articles are almost all in the form of spinout lists. Our MOS is written with our unique circumstances in mind, and, in my opinion at least, works quite well given those circumstances. Lastly, a significant reason we cannot support articles on adaptations everywhere they might pass WP:N is a lack of manpower - we are one of the larger projects on Wikipedia in terms of amount of content, but do a quick headcount of those of us who actually contribute to the project - discussing matters here, assessing, cleaning up, and categorizing articles, etc. - as opposed to those who simply edit articles related to their favorite series. We are, in fact, probably at a greater disadvantage than the other arts and media-related projects, considering anime and manga's ability to so strongly polarize its fanbase along so many different dividing lines. Now, to discuss the specific example of Dragon Ball GT mentioned above (especially in regards to the comment alluding to reliance on eventualism), let me point out that at the time it was merged/redirected to Dragon Ball, the article had existed since August 2003 (just shy of 5 years) without ever progressing beyond a largely-unreferenced, frequently vandalized, start-class article lacking any type of production or reception information. This is one of the foremost reasons requests to resplit it are refused, not because of some hidden deletionist agenda. --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 67.58.229.153 (talk) 20:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you wanted to split Dragon Ball GT I would say you'd have to have a decent level article. I wouldn't have to be WP:GA quality, but splitting it shouldn't jepordize the level of the parent artcle and I'd say a spinoff should be a C-class or strong start-class article. Yes, this does place a signfigant burden on the original creator, but given the article's history, such a burden is warranted.陣内_Jinnai 21:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the assessment guidelines say that a start-class article should already adequately demonstrate its notability, so a start-class article is a perfectly acceptable level for a spinout to be at. --Malkinann (talk) 00:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After talking about this issue with User:Bread Ninja on our talk pages, I'm realizing that my real concern here isn't whether the different adaptations are covered in a single article or multiple articles, but whether coverage of the adaptations are being inadvertantly stifled. Whether the content gets written in one article or multiple articles isn't really what I'm concerned about. Looking at relatively high-quality artilces like School Rumble and Fullmetal Alchemist, it seems to me that they do a very good job of covering both the manga and anime in detail, and having the coverage in a single article allows for better coverage of the differences between the multiple versions. It seems to me that except when there has been a specific push to bring an article up to good or featured status, adaptations and spinoffs end up neglected even when sources exist to cover them. Perhaps adding a line to WP:MOS-AM specifically stating that adaptations and spinoffs should be covered to the extent that sources allow (rather than having only brief covereage due to not being the original work) could help address this problem, though it probably doesn't do anything to address the issue of lack of manpower. With regards to Dragon Ball GT, my main issue is that the current layout of the article makes it hard to expand the coverage of DBGT in a way that seems to fit in the artilce, and also makes the insufficient coverage less noticable. Having it is a separate article makes it immediately clear that Dragon Ball GT is lacking coverage. I think I'm in disagreement with a lot of people here on the usefulness of stub and start class articles. In my opinion, in some cases having a poorly sourced stub or start class article is actually better than having something merged into a section of another article, as the poor-quality article is a very clear indication that work needs to be done on the subject. With a topic merged into a larger article, the better coverage in the rest of the article may mask the poor coverage of the area that was merged. While it is unfortunate that no one may bother to do the work even when a separate stub or start class article exists, I don't think the lack of manpower to actually write the article is reason to merge if it is clear that multiple artilces would be the desired end result. However, I'm only suggesting that having a start or stub class article is useful for cases where multiple articles would clearly be ideal. Also, I want to mention that I feel that a few members of this Wikiproject overly WP:BITE new users or people that disagree with them, and that may be a large part of why this Wikiproject doesn't have enough manpower (that is certainly the main reason I haven't put the tag for being a member of this Wikiproject on my talk page . . . I don't want people to associate me with those users). Once again using Dragon Ball GT as an example, if the users who tried to undo the redirect hadn't been called vandals (when this was clearly a content dispute, not vandalism), but instead had been asked to join the Wikiproject and pointed to reviews on sites like Anime News Network and Mania.com and asked to write a reception section, perhaps a good quality article on Dragon Ball GT would already exist. Calathan (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Calathan. I think that if there are enough sources for an adaptation to bring it to at least start level, then it should be fine having a separate article for that adaptation. The push which began a couple years ago to merge everything for an entire series, no matter how massive that series might be, did stifle the efforts of some people who were working with various groups of series articles. On a related note, I think the same applies for magazines, the Gangan Comics article being a prime example. I still disagree with merging all of those magazines into one article was a big mistake and made things somewhat confusing. I've never seen any other groups of magazines from anywhere else in the world merged into one catch-all article like this. I will likely be splitting most of them out sometime in the near future. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think part of the reticence to have article for adaptation is that it can be perceived as a "carte blanche" for more spin-out which is something we don't want at all. Another point is can we spin-out adaptation article without degrading the quality of the original article? Last point that no one gave a sane answer yet is what do we do with the other medias meaning Drama CD, Web Radio show, etc.... Do we cover it in the anime article or the manga article?
My current position is that beyond main article and related lists volumes, episodes, characters & soundtracks, every others spin-out articles have to be justified with enough verified contents proving that it's worth it. You want a spin-out fine, earn it. I sick tired of editors making false promise. --KrebMarkt 14:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Depends....Usually a drama Cd would mean that a possible anime could be adapted (like a debut or something), i think it would go on manga section, depending if they use the same voice actors as the anime, then it can be moved to the anime.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added as much non basis info on Carl Macek but I still believe it needs a clean up can any one know how to make it better? Dwanyewest (talk) 17:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion at WP:ANIME/ASSESS about increasing the importance rating to "High". —Farix (t | c) 19:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to give everyone a heads up, {{Anime}} and {{Manga}} are now redirects of {{Anime and manga}}. {{WPAnime}} and {{WPManga}} have replaced the former two templates as shortcuts. This is in keeping in that all banner shortcuts should note that they are WikiProject templates. —Farix (t | c) 16:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is something that's bothered me for a long time; thanks for finally doing something about it! =D --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 67.58.229.153 (talk) 19:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with the reasoning behind this, I hope you fixed all of the ones which were meant to point at the project tag. Also, it would have been useful to be notified of this ahead of time. I've used the other ones since they were created (over four years ago, I believe), and this little notice got buried in the rest of this page. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While trying to find out why a couple of webcomics are showing up in the improved AfD CatScan, the naming scheme of these categories began bothering me.

They are not very descriptive, and taking their literal meetings, aren't suitable category names. It would be literally like having genre categories named Category:Women, Category:Men, Category:Boys, Category:Girls, Category:Children. We have already moved the various demographic articles to aid in clarification. So I'm proposing that the associated categories be renamed in kind:

• Category:Josei -> Category:Josei manga
• Category:Seinen -> Category:Seinen manga
• Category:Shōjo -> Category:Shōjo manga
• Category:Shōnen -> Category:Shōnen manga
• Category:Kodomo anime and manga -> Category:Children's manga

The later proposal is because the term Kodomo is rarely used by reliable English language sources (Such as when ANN reports literary awards) and complies with WP:USEENGLISH. —Farix (t | c) 16:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree here, particularly since we have repeatedly said that those demographics apply only to manga and not to anime, as shown in our MoS and infobox. The only one I'm curious about is Kodomo. If it is rarely used, is it a legitimate category at all, or is it just that such titles are more frequently referenced as just "children's manga" instead? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The term Kodomo is rarely used in English. Instead, it is simply referred to as Children's manga since most people a ready understand that term and there is no need to explain it. I suppose it is one area were the "elitism" of using a Japanese term over its English equivalent never took root, except here on Wikipedia. —Farix (t | c) 17:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CoroCoro Comic appears to be a kodomo manga magazine, but not so sure if it is.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is, but it's rarely called that in English. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there is an english name, than add it in, i honestly didnt know there was an englsih name for kodomo.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck is children's manga? I have never heard that term used either in english, I say leave as is or just AfD it. When is the last time you have heard the english term suggested used? - 205.172.21.157 (talk) 21:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2009-12-26/keshikasu-kun-children-manga-gets-tv-anime-green-lit
• http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2008-05-13/32nd-annual-kodansha-manga-awards-announced
• http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2008-02-15/a-penguin-troubles-children-gag-manga-gets-anime
• http://www.aintitcool.com/node/40959
• http://comicsworthreading.com/2009/03/27/udon-manga-for-kids/
• http://www.amazon.com/Critical-Linguistic-Analysis-Japanese-Childrens/dp/383832837X
• http://www.ex.org/4.8/35-manga_doraemon.html
• http://www.rightstuf.com/rssite/main/animeResources/2002/evolution/

A search for "Kodomo manga" at ANN only turns up manga with "Kodomo" in the titles. And in a quick search, only About.com uses the term Kodomo, and then only sparingly and with clarification that it means "Children's manga. —Farix (t | c) 21:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for renaming. —Farix (t | c) 22:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Crossover anime and manga is another category that I've came across. This category was a real mess and was mostly populate by non-anime or manga articles (most of them 1990s Spider Man episodes) and even a squeal or two. I believe I got most of them out now, but the question is, where to put this category in the tree? Is Category:Anime and manga by topic the most appropriate place or somewhere else. Right now, it is linked off of the top Anime and Manga categories. —Farix (t | c) 00:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As there haven't been any complaints about this, and because I agree with your suggestion, I update the cats per the above. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I ask such a question is because Mazinger Z uses wikipedia to source alot of its material. If not should it be removed? Dwanyewest (talk) 03:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, Wikipedia can never be used as a source, it isn't a reliable source (user edited, etc). Any sources that just go to Wikipedia (any language) should be removed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I removed it for now but feel it will be might be put back by another author Dwanyewest (talk) 03:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, per WP:CIRCULAR Wikipedia, any language or mirror thereof may not be used as a source as that would lead to a circular reference. No to mention that the citation only linked to the article, as opposed to a specific version thereof o_O. I will be watching the page for the time being. G.A.S^talk 05:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a caveat to that - when a reliable source uses Wikipedia as a reference, the reliable source can still be used with care. RS/N discussion. --Malkinann (talk) 09:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just like I had problems with the other Digimon character articles, an editor is undoing the cleanup and removal of deprecated infobox fields at Sora Takenouchi. I'm going to try one more time. —Farix (t | c) 10:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed a tendancy in the Anime and Manga articles to list original works as "Adapations" when they clearly aren't. FE: Kenichi: The Mightiest Disciple has the manga listed under an "adapatation" although the lead clearly states it is the original work. One cannot be an original work and an adaptation at the same time. I do not know if our MoS really deals with this, but it does make things confusing as to what is an original and what is an adaptation when its listed in multiple locations let alone that adaptation has a clear meaning that is used and understood in such a way by the public and the rest of Wikipedia that it cannot be the original.陣内_Jinnai 20:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That article has a misnamed section (as does most any other using Adaptation most likely). The WP:MOS-AM uses the heading of Media for that section, because not all related media are adaptations. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've renamed the section header to "Media", which is in keeping with our other articles. —Farix (t | c) 21:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since we deal with a lot of magazines and such here, I thought I'd let you know. Please come participate in the discussion of this newly proposed notability guideline. Wikipedia:Notability (periodicals) (talk). Thanks! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notice the number of articles in the cats listed in Category:Anime and manga series categories. With a few exceptions, most of the categories have no more than 5 articles in them. this seems to be sort of over-categorization were practically every series with a couple of spin-out articles—usually a character, volume, and episode lists—is given it's own category. So the question is, how many articles are necessary before it is necessary to create a category for that series? —Farix (t | c) 22:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two articles is enough for a category to be created. No point in deleting valid categories. --Mika1h (talk) 23:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But categories are deleted or up-merged all of the time for being small with little to no potential for growth. And many of the series categories fit the definition of types of categories to avoid creating. (WP:OC#SMALL) —Farix (t | c) 00:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm misunderstanding, there are certain types of categories which are preferred to have one category for everything Wikipedia has an article on, even if that means having only one article in some of the categories - the example of this that I am aware of is albums by artist. I'm not sure just how animanga series cats would fit in there, though. --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 67.58.229.153 (talk) 16:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, User:Camelbinky is arguing for removing all plot summaries from all media articles unless the plot is sourced to a third-party source, not the work itself, claiming that they are "unencyclopedic" and that it is only a "vocal minority" who favor them. Discussion is at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Perhaps revisit this "perennial proposal" in light of new comment by Jimbo -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With the weekend coming up, I'd like some views on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Case Closed episodes (season 17)/archive2 so I could fix up the problems for the article. I also thank NihonJoe for the copyedits to the episodes. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 05:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An anon user has been editing List of Bleach episodes adding unsourced or speculated titles to the seasons. I gave him a warning, but keeps editing it with another IP. Should the I request semi-protection to the list? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 17:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article history indicates that semi-protection is probably warranted. Give it a shoot at WP:RPP or one Animanga project participant admins can do it. --KrebMarkt 17:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done.Tintor2 (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While going through articles for merging, I noticed that there are 28 articles that are almost all stubs for the soundtracks marked as suggested merges. Would it be better to just merge them all into a DBZ Discography minus the really notable stand out ones ? (They can be in the discography too but have their own article as well) I do not see why they need their own articles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah i think they should be merged, but I'm thinking of two articles one for soundtracks and one soundtrack collections if possible.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, we have List of Dragon Ball soundtracks as potential drop zone for the contents and the source are here. Happy editing. --KrebMarkt 18:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do this so that we can finally have a manageable list of album articles to link to from the Dragon Ball navbox... =P --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 67.58.229.153 (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Na. We need more editors getting some experiences on writing list of soundtracks. I provided all the sources for the list so call it assisted mud wading for editors doing the list. --KrebMarkt 16:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will get on it to fix up the list then, some of the sound tracks are not notable enough for stand out articles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’m a fan of 91.8 The Fan (http://www.918thefan.com) and I’ve been attempting to add links to voice actor interviews to their respective pages. From my knowledge Wikipedia does allow interviews concerning voice actors, but when I was attempting to add them they all got deleted.

I was a little confused by this because many of these interviews confirm or deny roles that Wikipedia states. In relation with that, it seems that 91.8 The Fan has the largest collection of western voice actor interviews and it seems like a valuable resource. I’m not trying to stuff this down anyone’s throat or get in trouble, I just wanted to ask if these are reliable resources or not? These are conversations with voice actors for up to hours, which I think is pretty interesting.

Maybe you guys could help us gauge whether or not these are okay?

Their interviews are listed here of the following people: http://918thefan.com/category/industry-interview/

I would like to confirm that I am not under their payroll, and that’s why I’m not sure why I‘m in trouble.

Here is a list of actors they've interviewed that I tried to add interview links to:

• Aaron Dismuke
• Ali Hillis
• Brad Swaile
• Chris Patton
• Claudia Black
• Crispin Freeman
• Cristina Vee
• David Lodge
• Doug Erholtz
• Eric Vale
• Grant George
• Gwendoline Yeo
• Jennifer Hale
• Joe Ochman
• Joe Romersa
• Jonthan Klein
• Jonathan Osborne
• Julie Rei Goldstein
• Juliet Cesario
• Justin Cook
• Kari Wahlgren
• Kirby Morrow
• Kyle Hebert
• Liam O’Brien
• Maile Flanagan
• Mark Hildreth
• Matt Mercer
• Megan Hollingshead
• Michael Granberry
• Michelle Ruff
• Mike Pollock
• Patrick Seitz
• Quinton Flynn
• Rachel Robinson
• Richard McGonagle
• Robert Axelrod
• Sam Douglas
• Scott McNeil
• Scott Simpson
• Stephanie Sheh
• Tara Platt
• Tiffany Grant
• Tony Oliver
• Travis Willingham
• Troy Baker
• Veronica Taylor
• Vic Mignogna
• Wally Wingert
• Yuri Lowenthal

—Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisBaker41 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think they should be fine for an external link, no questions. It is a commercial site which isn't full of user-contributed content (at least not as far as the interviews), so the interviews could be used to verify some facts. It would be good to have other non-interview sources to back up anything controversial, but using them to verify that they played a role (or not) shouldn't be a problem since official sites can be used for the same thing. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. How could I go about adding these links without them being deleted and getting myself in trouble? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisBaker41 (talk • contribs) 04:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dr. Slump (1997) episodes. Apparently this is the first episode of the second anime of the series. I think it should just be deleted. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 04:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged it as a unreferenced anime stub. I you think it should be deleted you can use {{Prod}} or {{Afd}}. – allen四names 05:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a valid episode list, even if there is only currently one episode listed (and I'm not too sure of the name either) - add entries for the other episodes and clean up/expand what's already there. Note that the other Dr. Slump episode list also needs some cleanup/expansion; both lists look like they were created by the same person. --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 67.58.229.153 (talk) ^{(what's this?)} 16:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They weren't, but the creator of 1997 page started adding summaries to the first page recently. There's a lot of episodes to go, so give him time to get the work done. He might well be planning on expanding the 1997 page once he finishes the 200+ episode summaries on the original. Doceirias (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]